Causation

• Causation


  The relationship between an act and the consequences it causes
• Types of causation


  • Factual causation
  • Legal causation
• ‘BUT FOR’ TEST ‘But for the actions of the defendant, would the result have occurred?’ • If the answer is no, then the defendant is guilty and can be tried for murder.
• Minimal cause test


  If the defendant was more than a Causa Di Minimis (minimal cause), he is responsible
• Novus Actus interveniens

  A new intervening act which breaks the chain of causation
• R V JORDAN: • Defendant stabs victim who later dies of allergic reaction to the penicillin given to him. Ratio = The defendant was not the operative cause of the death.
• Thin skull rule (Eggshell rule)

  A victim with a pre-existing weakness which makes their injury even worse. The defendant must take the victim as they are, therefore if the victim does suffer from a pre-existing weakness that worsens their injuries, the defendant is responsible for all injuries
• R V BLAUE: • Jehovah's witness refused blood transfusion and died. Ratio = D (doctor) still guilty for manslaughter by not giving the blood transfusion
• Contemporaneity rule


  Actus Reus + Mens Rea must coincide (happen at the same time)
• R V CHURCH: • Beat a girl who dismissed his sexual advances and threw her into river believing her to be dead. She died from drowning. Ratio = He had intent to cause GBH, so can form the MR for murder, but there is no AR for unlawful killing.
• case for "but for test"

  R V WHYTE: Ratio-But for the defendant poisoning the victim, she would have died anyway.